It is, according to the Population Research Institute (PRI), a pro-life organization "which works to end coercive population control, and fight the myth of overpopulation which fuels it." The current president of PRI is Steven W. Mosher, a well-known pro-life activist who cut his teeth exposing and protesting the problems of China's one-child policy, in particular forced abortion.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, the idea that there is no population problem is one of the pro-life 'narratives' that crops up all over the place. Here is the first of six videos in a PRI-produced series (for the complete series, visit the video series home page):
So let's look at the major assertions:
As for the first and second assertions, the charge that the population control/family planning movement is primarily about population control and killing off the "have nots" is at least 30 years out of date.
Until the mid- to late-1970s, the family planning movement was mainly about population numbers, and some of their tactics, as discussed in Michelle Goldberg's book The Means of Reproduction, were not admirable. The implementation of China's one-child policy, of course, is a real-life dystopian example of the dangers of single-mindedly and ruthlessly focusing on population control. These problems led to charges that population control was the project of first-world elitists looking to kill off the 'undesirables' of the third-world (and the poor of their own countries).
The contemporary family planning movement is still about population control, but only to an extent. For decades, family planning has been primarily about women's rights. Family planning as advocated by the UNFPA is not about controlling or reducing the size of a given population directly. Instead, family planning is about giving individual women (and couples) the autonomy to make their own decisions about pregnancy, number of children, and pregnancy spacing.
Increasing women's rights and promoting gender equality is the right thing to do as its own end. It also produces several positive side effects, among them a reduction in the birth rate to manageable levels-- the kinds that the PRI trumpets. There is, furthermore, a strong correlation between effective family planning and development in third world countries. Ironically, in the places, primarily in Europe, where birthrates are below replacement rate, it is because of gender inequity and a lack of social and state support for working women, not because of family planning per se. European countries with excellent family planning and state support for working mothers (like the Scandinavian countries and France) have sustainable replacement rates (1.7-2.1). As Goldberg asserts, women's rights-based-family planning is the solution to birthrates that are too high and birthrates that are too low.
Finally, the last assertion, about the population and Texas, suggests that there is plenty of space and resources to go around in the world. It may be physically possible to cram the whole world into Texas-- a thought sure to make Texans shudder-- but this has no bearing on the reality of human beings living on the planet in proximity to one another, producing and distributing goods, and engaging in sustainable use of the world's resources.
The world's population is not evenly distributed. The countries that have the highest birth rates in the world right now are the ones that are least equipped, politically and economically, to sustain growth in their populations. While the world overall probably produces enough food to feed everyone-- so that the phenomenon of malnutrition and starvation is a collective moral failure-- the PRI video does not note the obvious: politics, from the beginning of humanity, has gotten in the way of distributing the world's resources properly and justly. Ironically, the domestic and international policies that might change the state of things-- move some of the surplus of the "haves" to the "have nots"-- are opposed by many pro-life Americans.
To possess a 'fair and balanced' view of population issues, I suggest supplementing PRI's video series with a read of the recently released UN report on the State of World Population. It is an excellent primer on women's rights-based family planning.
Links:
The homepage for the PRI video series, with additional information: Overpopulationisamyth.com
Homepage of the Population Research Institute
Homepage of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
Homepage for Michelle Golberg's The Means of Reproduction
As I pointed out in an earlier post, the idea that there is no population problem is one of the pro-life 'narratives' that crops up all over the place. Here is the first of six videos in a PRI-produced series (for the complete series, visit the video series home page):
So let's look at the major assertions:
- The population scare prompted the creation of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA).
- Those who support population control are the "haves" trying to wipe out the undesirable "have nots."
- The world population will peak in a 30 years or so and then start to decline.
- All of the world's population could live in a land mass the size of Texas.
As for the first and second assertions, the charge that the population control/family planning movement is primarily about population control and killing off the "have nots" is at least 30 years out of date.
Until the mid- to late-1970s, the family planning movement was mainly about population numbers, and some of their tactics, as discussed in Michelle Goldberg's book The Means of Reproduction, were not admirable. The implementation of China's one-child policy, of course, is a real-life dystopian example of the dangers of single-mindedly and ruthlessly focusing on population control. These problems led to charges that population control was the project of first-world elitists looking to kill off the 'undesirables' of the third-world (and the poor of their own countries).
The contemporary family planning movement is still about population control, but only to an extent. For decades, family planning has been primarily about women's rights. Family planning as advocated by the UNFPA is not about controlling or reducing the size of a given population directly. Instead, family planning is about giving individual women (and couples) the autonomy to make their own decisions about pregnancy, number of children, and pregnancy spacing.
Increasing women's rights and promoting gender equality is the right thing to do as its own end. It also produces several positive side effects, among them a reduction in the birth rate to manageable levels-- the kinds that the PRI trumpets. There is, furthermore, a strong correlation between effective family planning and development in third world countries. Ironically, in the places, primarily in Europe, where birthrates are below replacement rate, it is because of gender inequity and a lack of social and state support for working women, not because of family planning per se. European countries with excellent family planning and state support for working mothers (like the Scandinavian countries and France) have sustainable replacement rates (1.7-2.1). As Goldberg asserts, women's rights-based-family planning is the solution to birthrates that are too high and birthrates that are too low.
Finally, the last assertion, about the population and Texas, suggests that there is plenty of space and resources to go around in the world. It may be physically possible to cram the whole world into Texas-- a thought sure to make Texans shudder-- but this has no bearing on the reality of human beings living on the planet in proximity to one another, producing and distributing goods, and engaging in sustainable use of the world's resources.
The world's population is not evenly distributed. The countries that have the highest birth rates in the world right now are the ones that are least equipped, politically and economically, to sustain growth in their populations. While the world overall probably produces enough food to feed everyone-- so that the phenomenon of malnutrition and starvation is a collective moral failure-- the PRI video does not note the obvious: politics, from the beginning of humanity, has gotten in the way of distributing the world's resources properly and justly. Ironically, the domestic and international policies that might change the state of things-- move some of the surplus of the "haves" to the "have nots"-- are opposed by many pro-life Americans.
To possess a 'fair and balanced' view of population issues, I suggest supplementing PRI's video series with a read of the recently released UN report on the State of World Population. It is an excellent primer on women's rights-based family planning.
Links:
The homepage for the PRI video series, with additional information: Overpopulationisamyth.com
Homepage of the Population Research Institute
Homepage of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
Homepage for Michelle Golberg's The Means of Reproduction
Comments